If they really want to make a statement, how about 40,000,000 rusty coathangers to represent all the women who could have died because of a botched back alley abortion?
And here we LIBERALS thought abortion was hysterical.
<MAJOR SARCASM>You aren’t aborting a fetus, you’re making a hand puppet! There are so many uses for the casual liberal abortion that it boggles the mind! Why… on the next Martha Stewart Living, they are showing how to make a fetus cozy.</MAJOR SARCASM>
I’m not sure I get your point (perhaps that’s just what your lead sentence here means). Couldn’t you say the same about any highly charged debate? If I’m understanding your post, it’s not necessarily to argue which side is correct (though it’s clear which position you take), but to suggest that stating an opposing point of view is, well, pointless.
Are you suggesting that people (on either side) never change their opinions, that every pro-choice (or pro-life) opinion is so unassailable that any gesture is wasted energy?
When you refer to “the rest of us,” I believe you’re taking liberties. Despite how convenient it is for some to stereotype (even in this thread) there are not just two factions in this debate (i.e., “clear-thinking pro-choicers” versus “religious fanatics”). There are lots and lots of people who struggle with this issue, who wrestle with elements of this debate. Your post suggests otherwise; you at least imply, it seems to me, that there are simply two camps with diametrically opposed and immutable views. There may indeed be no way to convinve you, even sven, to move from your position. I’m sure, though, that you wouldn’t suggest that you represent every pro-choice opinion in the world.
Though I can’t prove it, I believe there will be people swayed by this demonstration. You may find that thought even more distasteful. But that’s the nature of debate and of protest. And, just to summarize, I’m not trying to argue a particular side here (though I’ll admit freely that I’m pro-life), just so that fact isn’t lost if someone chooses to respond. I am suggesting that some form of “Look, they’re at it again,” could be applied to any expression of any side of any debate that ever existed, and that assertion–by itself–would be equally irrelevant in every instance.
Save your breath, Drainy. That is exactly the sentiment I expressed when this idea came up for the first time back on the LBMB. I pointed out that the time and effort used to knit said booties could be put into preventive education, or could be used to help out a young single mother who did decide to have her baby, to show that you don’t just care about the unborn.
To their credit, many of the folks there (notably ghoti, IIRC) talked about how they do all sorts of things along those lines already. However, I was mostly shouted down. Some agreed, and said that perhaps they could give the booties to needy families after the demonstration. :rolleyes:
Oh, well.
Dr. J
Give the booties to needy families.
Riiiiiiight.
How 'bout selling the booties for a buck a pair, then taking the money and donating it to needy families? That’ll buy a lot of diapers and food, which is what they really need.
My stepson’s older sister, who is 10, was talking about abortion a few weeks ago. Her mother is pretty rabidly pro-life, and the girl was pretty much parroting her mother’s opinion (she said things I’ve heard her mother say, word-for-word). I (I think wisely) said as little as possible. I believe the only thing I said in response was “abortion is a very touchy subject, and everyone has an opinion about it.” Thankfully, she never asked me mine. I say thankfully because her mother is a bit nutty, and if I had disclosed any opinion regarding any issue that has anything to do with any sexually-related subject, we’d probably have ended up not seeing the kids for a while.
Granted, most kids get opinions on stuff from their parents. As they get older and more experienced, those opinions may change. I’m all for teaching children exactly what an opinion is, though. When my children become old enough to ask questions about abortion, I will tell them what I think, and make sure that they know it is my opinion, and that other people think differently than I do. I will encourage them to research, question, and form their own opinions. There’s just too much gray area when it comes to abortion to even try to present an opinion as fact.
Thank you, Kyo and Bob Cos.
This kind of display offends me because that’s just what it is: a display, grandstanding.
I don’t care what “side” anyone is on; choosing to use time, engergy, resources etc. for productions like this is stupid. Volunteer as a counselor, donate to a shelter for unwed mothers, take in a foster child, volunteer as a hospital “holder” for crack and AIDS babies–those things do actual good.
This may sound judgmental, but a lot of big demonstrations like this seem more about ego–“look how right I am!”–rather than actual concern. Concern isn’t just feelings; hell, everybody feels about all kinds of things. It’s doing something useful with feelings. It’s like people who “feel strongly about politics” but don’t bother to vote. Or people who get angry, stage big demonstrations–and then go home, all satisified. The only people who sorta benefit are Public Works employees who earn overtime to sweep up the litter.
Maybe I’m too pragmatic, but I just don’t see the real benefits to justify the resources.
Veb
So any second of anyone’s time that is not dedicated to the direct application of some benefit to the needy warrants your scorn and can be dismissed out of hand? It’s not possible for someone to participate in demonstrations and the types of activities you advocate? Protest and debate can’t also produce “actual good”?
I would remind you that there were numerous “displays” that took place in the 60’s for the cause of Civil Rights, and I believe these protests produced enormous “actual good.” They were, in my opinion, righteous efforts. I’m interested (sincerely): do you feel the same way about the marches Dr. King conducted? If you do not feel the same way, then you might want to re-examine the roots of your opinion. Because if you truly don’t care what side anyone is on, I’ll assume you have the same disdain for Dr. King’s efforts (unless there’s some reason to characterize them differently, a reason distinct from his politics/philosophy).
Bob? Read the OP? Read the posts? Have any clue as to the topic under discussion?
The “don’t care which side” referred to the abortion debate—since that was the topic under discussion. Notice very example I gave was related (gasp?) to that topic? I’m firmly pro-choice but have the same low opinion of elaborate pro-choice productions that stack up coat hangers, etc. It sucks up resourcs, it alienates more people than it convinces and it’s a waste.
I’m interested (sincerely) about how and why you took one statement, knocked it into a completely separate context of your choosing then spun a nasty little set of totally unsupported assumptions about my views on Dr. King, race and civil rights.
Know something, Bob? You might want to re-examine the basis of your–using the term very loosely–thought processes. Want to know if I think there’s a qualitative difference between abortion demonstrations and other civil actions, past and present? Good question; wish you’d asked it. Instead you chose to make some baseless assumptions up front, wad them into a stinking bundle them drop them at my door, yelling “look what you did!”
Just for the record, Bob, not that you seem overly concerned with facts but hey, since you asked so nicely, I grew up in the late 60’s and early 70’s and participated actively in civil rights demonstrations. Some were allied with Dr. King’s initiatives, some were over purely local issues. Do I think they were qualitatively different? Yes. Why? They were just one small, tightly targeted part of a much broader initiative–and by tightly targeted I mean they included marches through white neighborhoods that refused integration, white business areas that wouldn’t serve blacks, etc. They were quiet–usually singing at most–visual presence of black and white faces saying this wouldn’t be tolerated any more.
Most crucially, they got more press coverage because they were better photo-ops than the constant, unglamorous work for voter registration, petitions, letter writing, fair housing, more letter writing, visiting officials of all kinds, more letter writing, more petitions, etc. They weren’t an end in themselves, just one small means.
Maybe that intensive grunt-work goes on with other issues; other than a very few wacko emails and flyers in my door I haven’t seen much evidence of it as an individual. Don’t know, but willing to learn.
Oh, and Bob? If you truly regard rational discussion with the carelessness you’ve shown here, I’ll have to assume you either you don’t know better or for some reason you’ve decided to hold me in disdain.
Veb
FWIW, I guess I misunderstood your post as well. I interpreted (I guess, incorrectly) your “don’t care which side” line to mean that the content of “any” political protest really doesn’t matter if the “means” of the protest seem to be a waste of time. As far as I could tell, the abortion debate, per se, was not the original topic, but rather whether this particular bootie event was a useful exercise.
I’ll let Bob speak for himself, but if one starts with the notion that the “don’t care” line is referring to more than just the abortion debate, then asking about your opinions of the methods used in other non violent demonstrations/events is a fair question I think. I truthfully didn’t see anything “nasty” in what he said.
Thanks for the input, beagledave. I value your opinion–a lot–so I reread the whole thread again.
With the exception of Jonathan Chance’s post, which mentioned demonstrations in general, the sole topic under discussion was abortion.
When referring to “on any side” I was relating directly back to Bob’s own words in his reply to Hastur:
When you refer to “the rest of us,” I believe you’re taking liberties. Despite how convenient it is for some to stereotype (even in this thread) there are not just two factions in this debate (i.e., “clear-thinking pro-choicers” versus “religious fanatics”). There are lots and lots of people who struggle with this issue, who wrestle with elements of this debate. Your post suggests otherwise; you at least imply, it seems to me, that there are simply two camps with diametrically opposed and immutable views
See where my frustration is? First he slings his assumtions onto Hastur for not specifying that the the controversey has multiple viewpoints. When I deliberately used wording acknowledging multiple viewpoints, but didn’t add a specific rider about it applying to the topic under discussion, Bob oozed sideways and extrapolated totally baseless–and damned offensive–assumptions about my beliefs on race.
I paid Bob the basic respect of reading his posts carefully and incorporating his issues into my reply. I don’t like the sick little “gotcha” tactics he pulled on both Hastur and me. I repect your opinion a lot, beagledave but on this one can friends agree to disagree? The straw-man arguments, the patronizing guidance on things people didn’t say and the opportunistic assumptions still strike me as distinctly nasty.
Veb
Well now I gotta admit honest confusion here…I thought that Bob’s first post was in reply to even sven OP…where she said
“The rest of us (includeing their precious wayward teens) will envision…um…forty million lumps of fetal tissue.”
My take on Bob’s first post then was that he was suggesting that there are more than 2 camps in the abortion debate, and that even sven’s use of a phrase like “the rest of us” creates a paradigm of only 2 sides (and I guess therefore that any bootie event would just be a waste of time because it’s preaching to the choir). If , however, Bob was responding to Hastur’s post instead…then all bets are off and I’m bamboozled 
beagledave:
Dang. He c&p’d even sven’s post; re-reading it for the umpteenth time, I’m still not sure whom he’s correcting about about multiple “camps” on the issue. I’m in agreement there, btw. It’s way too variable an issue for “us vs. them”: based on religion, partial birth, only in case of rape, possibly including incest, consent of SO, consent (or mandate) by parents…it’s a complex issue that goes way beyond tidy religious and political labels.
Maybe I am taking this personally. After trying so carefully to incorporate his point–no matter to whom he was addressing it–his blithe, leaping assumption that I’m a Dr. King hating bigot is offensive. There it is. It’s offensive.
This has left me with a headache and a very bad taste in my mouth. Sorry, but I’m outta this thread.
Veb
Wow! Just saw all this. Allow me to clarify (hopefully you will not really abandon this thread having vented your spleen without giving me an opportunity to respond–that would be frustrating and bad form). Quite frankly, I am amazed at your reaction, but I think in this last post I finally gained an understanding. I will certainly do my best not to assign any motives to you and didn’t intend to previously.
First, my original post in this thread was directed to even sven (I even mentioned him by name). If there is still confusion regarding my “multiple camps” point, I’m not sure how to dispel it with any explanation different than what I first posted. It seems to me the OP (which I responded to) could be summarized as someone saying “Don’t those people understand that the rest of us don’t buy their premise, therefore it’s a wasted gesture?” The phrase “rest of us” was even sven’s, and I felt then–and still do–that this was an over-simplification. There are not simply two factions: those knitting baby booties and the rest of the world.
If you’re still “not sure” whom I directed this to (honestly, I can’t imagine how that could be so at this point, particularly when I incorporated the original post as a quotation and addressed the OP by name), or what my point was, hopefully this explains it and you can do me the courtesy of acknowledging that I did not “sling [my] assumptions onto Hastur for not specifying that the the controversey has multiple viewpoints,” when I did not do any form of that.
Second, I’ll assume your outrage is related to the following comment:
If that’s your reaction to my post, I can understand your taking offence. In fact, although I did not know for certain, it was my assumption that you were not a Dr. King-hating bigot–most people are not–and that in using this analogy it might make clear that your original assertion was not completely valid. The fact that you were discussing abortion when you said “I don’t care what side” wasn’t lost on me. But your explanation as to why you found this particular instance of protest distasteful seemed to me to lend itself to other demonstrations. Your words:
Why wouldn’t this apply to any other form of demonstration–UNLESS (as I was careful to point out) it was not the mere issue of demonstration that causes your scorn, but the cause itself. From me:
That was the point where you were supposed to stop in your tracks and say, “Gosh! How wise that Bob Cos is! Of course I don’t hate Dr. King; therefore I should rethink my ‘objectivity’ with regard to this pro-life demonstration”–not say, “That asshole thinks I hate Dr. King!”–though it’s now clear I didn’t pull that off, and I can understand your reaction. I apologize for any insult you inferred as a result of my lack of clarity.
I hope this does make things more obvious (maybe not), and I still believe it is a completely valid point. You could choose any cause you’d like. Again, I selected the Civil Rights cause of the 60’s specifically because I assumed you would agree with that cause. If I did not assume that, my analogy would have been a weak one. Apparently only my writing skills were, in that I did not make that clearer. But that doesn’t make it an invalid point.
You indicated:
The primary distinction you seem to be drawing (let me know if I’m wrong) is that the cause in the 60’s was associated with other “unglamorous” activities, which assigned a credibility to the protests (I’ll assume if the pro-life gang suddenly became good singers, that wouldn’t do the trick for you). You already assume–your willingness to learn notwithstanding–that this is not the case in the pro-life movement. From you:
Great. I can tell you from first-hand experience that you are wrong and your characterization is a form of stereotyping. If you go on record as saying that the pro-life movement is hypocritical in this regard (all talk, no action, so to speak), then you can expect to be called on it.
In fact, describing the pro-life movement in any way as a single and unified front is flat out wrong. There are thousands of “pro-life” volunteers who counsel and contribute and give of their time; they don’t all know each other or even have beliefs that are completely in synch. The fact that you’re willing to admit that is so (the first part, that is) if someone is willing to provide evidence doesn’t change the fact that you based your post on an unfounded assumption (if, indeed, the lack of “unglamorous” work from the pro-life force is a given for you, and I can’t see any other way to interpret your posts).
So, if I gave you the impression I took you for a bigot, it was intended only with regard to your perception of the pro-life camp. Sorry if that word offends you. We are all guilty of bigotry to some degree, and the best of us try to change our worldviews when that circumstance becomes apparent. You may take as much offence from that as you feel it warrants, but perhaps you can re-read the thread yet again and see if there is any truth at all to this thought.
And, BTW, your reaction was just over the top. I always conduct myself in these forums with decorum, treating people with respect and trying to understand other’s points of view. In fact, that is what my post to you was, regardless of your reaction. I take as good as I give in these debates and have always conceded when someone makes a point or I took liberties unintentionally. That’s NOT what occurred here.
Or maybe you were just having a bad day. Whatever. If I have lost your respect–and if I’m understanding your criteria for assigning that honor–then I’ll learn to live with that horrible disgrace.
If I am mischaracterizing any of your words, perhaps you can enlighten me without resorting to needless insult. It is always my goal to interact in a constructive manner, regardless of how successful I may be in achieving that goal.
“Respect” to you–from where I’m sitting, anyway–means firing off unfounded insults about carelessness and feeble thought processes (even when you are dead wrong with facts, in certain circumstances) whenever someone disagrees with you.
Sorry. Maybe yesterday was a bad day for you. This is already a bad day for me.
[QUOTE]
***Originally posted by Bob Cos ***
Okay, some things become clearer…
Oh, good grief. Well, at least you admit the tactic was deliberate. All this brouhaha so you could make some arcane little point about my supposed "lack of objectivity toward pro-life demonstrations when I bent over backwards to include pro-choice and all the variations of opinion. And then you follow your apology with a long, self-justifying renweal of bait-and-switch tactics and nasty/nice little swipes.
I started to quote and rebut your points one by one, but frankly it isn’t worth it. You’re an ardent pro-lifer determined to bludgeon others into believing as you do. If someone else wants to have a “discussion” with you, have at it. I’m not wasting any more time on this.
Veb
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TVeblen *
**
Are you for real? I “admit” what? You bent over backwards? What the hell are you talking about? The only thing I “admitted” was that you might have misunderstood me. “All this brouhaha” was the direct result of several ranting posts from you.
And you have yet to rebut a single point I have made, so this is not a shock from my perspective. You’ve also confirmed my initial impression that you fall into that group of posters who think that “outrage” and glib insult is a substitute for real argument. You have also yet to even acknowledge the fact that you made an unfounded accusation (regarding my “attack” on Hastur), so it’s also crystal clear to me how “big” of a person you are.
And I have not made a single pro-life argument in this thread (i.e., an argument in direct support of a pro-life position on abortion), so your characterization of me as bludgeoning others toward a pro-life belief is asinine. I suppose it does support the notion that you are more than willing to stereotype anyone who has even a hint of pro-life belief about him.
Do you honestly believe that if you simply keep calling something “nasty” and “bait and switch” and “bludgeoning” and such over and over again–while ignoring the points I’ve raised and clarified–that this will will somehow make you right? Does this tactic actually work with some people? Do they not notice that your responses ignore the actual points raised? Go on, enjoy yourself then. I’m absolutely done wasting any more time on you and your wounded sanctimony.
Okay…first things first:
<MAJOR SARCASM>You aren’t aborting a fetus, you’re making a hand puppet! There are so many uses for the casual liberal abortion that it boggles the mind! Why… on the next Martha Stewart Living, they are showing how to make a fetus cozy.</MAJOR SARCASM> **
[/QUOTE]
EXCELLENT! Everyone, this is an example of a FUNNY dead baby joke. That and: what is the difference between a truckfull of bowling balls and a truckfull of baby heads? A: you can’t use a pitch fork to move bowling balls.
I was just pissed over a certain emptiness in the original post. It didn’t feel enough like a joke…somehow…what the fuck, I forget what I was feeling at the time. Perhaps I just thought it was an ill-conceived joke?
So how CAN we prevent unwanted pregnancies?
Anyone have any workable ideas?